How Health Regulators Are Killing American Smokers

Cigarettes are by far the gravest threat to America’s public health — a killer far worse than obesity, contagious diseases, and cancers of the colon, prostate and breast combined. Forty-six million Americans still smoke, despite all the warnings and taxes. That’s about one-fifth of us — way down from its peak in the 1960s, but stubbornly resisting further declines. About 450,000 Americans die needlessly each year from inhaling the toxins and carcinogens in smoke.

Now consider that science actually has the means to dramatically reduce this public health catastrophe: tobacco harm reduction. As applied in other areas of public health, the benefits of harm reduction are well known: the idea is to reduce the health consequences of a substance or behavior without demanding complete abstinence from it. Distributing condoms to people who are known to engage in risky sexual activity is one example; providing IV drug addicts with sterile needles is another. By contrast, the “abstinence only” approach demands that the addict completely renounce their substance of abuse. It’s an all-or-nothing attitude that, unfortunately, fails to help a lot of the people who need it most.

Although about two-thirds of smokers would like to quit, and one-third actually try to quit each year, fewer than five percent succeed. For those 450,000 American smokers who die each year, clearly, an abstinence only approach has not worked. Nicotine addiction is extremely strong. Yet, in a perversion of science-based public health policy, the truth about effective methods to help more smokers quit has been ignored, indeed suppressed, by our public health authorities who continually deny the mountain of epidemiological evidence pointing to the benefits of tobacco harm reduction.

Tobacco harm reduction advocates the use of reduced-risk nicotine products, which allows addicted smokers to curtail their smoking without forcing them to eliminate nicotine altogether — an extraordinarily difficult task. Nicotine is the major reason inveterate smokers fail to quit: the craving for nicotine is as strong as that for heroin and cocaine. Yet the spectrum of smoking-related disease is not caused by nicotine, but by the products of tobacco combustion inhaled many times a day for decades. Nicotine is addictive, but it is not itself harmful.

That explains why tobacco harm reduction saves lives. Its goal is to reduce the devastating health risks of tobacco. The success of this policy in Sweden over the past four decades is widely accepted — but not among America’s tunnel-visioned health regulators. Thanks to snus, moist smokeless tobacco in small pouches, Swedish men have the lowest smoking rate and the lowest rate of smoking-related disease and death in Europe.

Yet our public-health officialdom ignores or denies these data, adhering to the mantra “There is no safe alternative to smoking.” They ignore or deny the results demonstrating that snus-type smokeless tobacco is about 99% less harmful than cigarettes. On the other hand, studies of the traditional cessation methods show that these products — patches, gum, inhalers, medications — simply do not work. But that inconvenient fact has not deterred our officialdom from insisting that smokers stick to these useless products. Their abstinence-only attitude refuses to acknowledge the documented benefits of smokeless tobacco as a cessation aid, not to mention the apparent benefits of newer products, such as dissolvable tobacco and “clean nicotine” delivery systems that include electronic cigarettes.

Worst of all, there is little hope in sight to remediate this tragic situation. The FDA’s position is that the benefits of reduced risk products for harm reduction must be “proven” before they can be recommended to smokers in America. But here’s the Catch-22: Only the tobacco industry has the requisite expertise and finances to perform the long-term, large-scale, super-expensive studies needed to prove the benefit of these products to the FDA’s satisfaction. The tobacco industry is explicitly barred, however, from supplying the needed data.

Given the intolerable loss of life and health attributable to smoking, why are the skeptics at the FDA, the American Cancer Society and the CDC stonewalling America’s smokers about harm reduction? I believe it’s because those experts recall too well the tobacco industry’s reprehensible behavior during the last century, and simply do not trust anything that the industry proposes.

But who pays for this failure to enter the 21st century and accept reality? Not the experts. Not the tobacco companies. No, the victims are the 45 million addicted smokers, and the families of those who couldn’t quit before cancer or heart disease struck. The time is long past when that approach should have evolved, to help smokers get the help they need to quit the death-dealing cigarette.

Dr. Gilbert Ross is the executive and medical director at the American Council on Science and Health.

Post Your Comment

Post Your Reply

Forbes writers have the ability to call out member comments they find particularly interesting. Called-out comments are highlighted across the Forbes network. You'll be notified if your comment is called out.

This group won’t disclose their funding. How about asking all of the tobacco companies whether they fund this front group? They are probably more trustworthy than a doctor who was convicted of Medicaid fraud like Gilbert Ross was.

ACSH is the same group that billed Syngenta $100,000 to defend the herbicide Atrazine, – this money went to pay for their (president) Elizabeth Whelan’s $350,000 (+) compensation. They told the public that industry grants are for general support, but in recently release court documents you can see that wasn’t exactly true. : http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Portal:Atrazine_Exposed

Now the group is being run by a medicaid fruadster. I’m surprised that Forbes didn’t do their research.

There are thousands of Americans in forums around the internet that can attest to the power of swedish snus as a stop smoking aid. Given a few days to switch one’s mindset, you simply do not want cigarettes anymore as all of your cravings are being met by the snus. And every study done in the last 20 years has shown it to be virtually free of any health consequence.

Just prior to joining the ACSH staff in 1998, Ross served more than a year in prison and had his medical license revoked over his role in a Medicare fraud scheme.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Council_on_Science_and_Health

The conservative Washington Times wrote:

NOTE TO READERS: On March, 4 2010, The Washington Times ran an oped by Dr. Gilbert Ross, medical director of the American Council on Science and Health, entitled “When senators play doctor.” Dr. Ross has written for USA Today, The Wall Street Journal, The Los Angeles Times and The Washington Times previously. Dr. Ross did not disclose to the Times that he had been convicted of Medicaid fraud and, for a period of years, lost his license to practice medicine. Had the Times known these facts, we would not have run the article.

Source Watch says: “And Ross’ background is as spotty as his junk science-for-hire. For “his participation in a scheme that ultimately defrauded New York’s Medicaid program of approximately $8 million,” Ross had his medical license revoked, spent a year at a federal prison camp, and was barred from the Medicare and Medicaid programs for 10 years, after a judge found him to be “a highly untrustworthy ” individual.http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Gilbert_Ross

That can’t be. ACSH does not publish a list of their funders, so far as anyone can tell. But we do know, that according to recently released court documents, American Council on Science and Health president Mrs. Elizabeth “Whelan is paid over $350,000 in compensation from this non-profit group.” http://www.truth-out.org/syngentas-paid-third-party-pundits-spin-news-atrazine/1328650622

As long as you are looking these things up, how much compensation is paid to the leaders of the American Cancer Society, the American Lung Association, American Heart Association, and Campaign for Tobacco-free Kids, the ring-leaders of the opposition against smoke-free electronic cigarettes?